Exactly what software these days takes advantage of a dual-core
processor.
I'm not a PC-gamer, run XP Pro and MS Office Pro, and amp looking for
a good upgrade PC.
>From what I've read, a dual-core processor option would be a waste of
money. Do you agree ?

<Chief_Billy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164749365.712314.260960@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Exactly what software these days takes advantage of a dual-core
> processor.
> I'm not a PC-gamer, run XP Pro and MS Office Pro, and amp looking for
> a good upgrade PC.
> >From what I've read, a dual-core processor option would be a waste of
> money. Do you agree ?
>

Dual core is great for apps that can make use of it such as Photoshop CS2...

but for general browsing and word processing you don't need a dual core

philo wrote:
>> >From what I've read, a dual-core processor option would be a waste of
>> money. Do you agree ?
> Dual core is great for apps that can make use of it such as Photoshop CS2...
> but for general browsing and word processing you don't need a dual core

In theory, a dual core would still be useful for these basic tasks
because one core could run the applications and the other could sort out
Anti-Virus, o/s background processes etc.

However, in reality I've seen no evidence that it actually works like that.

Regardless of the above, it will be very hard to even buy a single core
processor soon.

What matters is what will do in the future when dual core cpus are very common.
> I'm not a PC-gamer, run XP Pro and MS Office Pro,
> and amp looking for a good upgrade PC.
> From what I've read, a dual-core processor option
> would be a waste of money. Do you agree ?

Nope, not when you pay bugger all extra for that and its got a lot more future.

If you're going to all the effort of upgrading, why not go dual-
core? Looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo series there is no cost
benefit in going to a single core P4. In fact a Core 2 Duo E6400
running single core processes will out perform a 3.6 Ghz P4.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:29:26 -0800, Chief_Billy thoughtfully wrote:
> Exactly what software these days takes advantage of a dual-core processor.
> I'm not a PC-gamer, run XP Pro and MS Office Pro, and amp looking for a
> good upgrade PC.
>>From what I've read, a dual-core processor option would be a waste of
> money. Do you agree ?

I don't think XP Pro or Office take advantage of dual core cpus. If cost
is not an option by all means upgrade to a dual core. Otherwise, memory
and storage. The same advice applies for video. Ie, if it ain't broke
don't fix it.

Next upgrade I move to Xbox or PS2 for FPS gaming, leave the PC for
RTS gaming and non gaming tasks.

<Chief_Billy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164749365.712314.260960@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Exactly what software these days takes advantage of a dual-core
> processor.
> I'm not a PC-gamer, run XP Pro and MS Office Pro, and amp looking for
> a good upgrade PC.
>>From what I've read, a dual-core processor option would be a waste of
> money. Do you agree ?

"Worth it"... what does that mean? What is the difference in price between a
single core and a dual core?

Having two cores will make the OS more responsive as task when multiple
thinks are going on, such as virus scans, printing, etc.

> However, in reality I've seen no evidence that it actually works like
> that.
>
> Regardless of the above, it will be very hard to even buy a single core
> processor soon.

And what about energy consumption? A 3Ghz chip will cost several hundred
pounds / dollars a year to run. What's a dual-core or even quad or oct-core
going to cost you - or your business? And what if you have more than one PC
at home? And what about the cost to the environment? Surely this is only
going to exacerbate the already pressing global energy concerns.

The IT hardware industry by doing so much in the way of invention and
pushing the application of our expanding technical knowledge and
understanding, isn't doing enough in the opposite direction my opinion, to
save and conserve whats left of our resources.

Only professionals and certain companies are surely going to really feel and
utilise the benefits of all this extra processing power - of course its
desirable and thus easily marketable to the masses, but really, what's it
all for? To do not a lot of nothing more quickly? Oh great! Just what we
need to help us avoid global environmental catastrophe!

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:20:25 +0000, Gerry_uk
<gerry666uk@yahoo.com> wrote:
>philo wrote:
>
>>> >From what I've read, a dual-core processor option would be a waste of
>>> money. Do you agree ?
>
>> Dual core is great for apps that can make use of it such as Photoshop CS2...
>
>> but for general browsing and word processing you don't need a dual core
>
>In theory, a dual core would still be useful for these basic tasks
>because one core could run the applications and the other could sort out
>Anti-Virus, o/s background processes etc.
>
>However, in reality I've seen no evidence that it actually works like that.
>
>Regardless of the above, it will be very hard to even buy a single core
>processor soon.

One can look at their system CPU utilization besides the
primary task and see what % of CPU time is used. If that
time is slight, for the same $ a faster single core may
outperform the dual core.

It may depend a bit on the rest of the system as well.
Suppose one has a budget grade single hard drive in the
system- the drive may bottleneck system so much that the
single core CPU is continually waiting on data I/O, a
second/third/etc core wouldn't matter much at all, perhaps
only making the GUI feel slightly snappier.

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:35:49 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Chief_Billy@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Exactly what software these days takes advantage of a dual-core processor.
>
>What matters is what will do in the future when dual core cpus are very common.
>

Except that by this point in time the system might be due to
be replaced again.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:45:30 -0500, "Ian D"
<taurus@nowhere.com> wrote:
>If you're going to all the effort of upgrading, why not go dual-
>core? Looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo series there is no cost
>benefit in going to a single core P4. In fact a Core 2 Duo E6400
>running single core processes will out perform a 3.6 Ghz P4.
>
>Check here for multiple benchmarks for many current CPUs:
>http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=454&chart=175
>
>

Why not would be that for the same $, an Athlon 64 may
outperform a Core 2 Duo on many tasks.

As always, the particular most demanding apps should be
considered, and benchmarks sought of their performance on
different CPU architectures as well as the single vs. dual
core choice.

Chief_Billy@hotmail.com wrote:
> Exactly what software these days takes advantage of a dual-core
> processor.
> I'm not a PC-gamer, run XP Pro and MS Office Pro, and amp looking for
> a good upgrade PC.
> >From what I've read, a dual-core processor option would be a waste of
> money. Do you agree ?

Thanks for all the comments and advice. I'm going to go with an AMD
Athlon 64 x2 3800+DC processor, as it is a free upgrade. Other
components will be 2G DDR2-533 and 250G 7200 SATA.